We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Warning: JavaScript is required for some functionalities of this page. Please enable the use of JavaScript in your browser. Log In
Register My Account
Log Out (%1$s)

COMMUNITY RULES: The Community Guidelines include important information about the rules we expect everyone to follow when using the DDO Forums. CLICK HERE for the Community Rules.

Trouble Logging in? Remember: your community login is the same as your game login!

Known Issue: Black Screen With Visible UI: Some Intel users may find that when DirectX 10 is enabled, only their UI is visible and the rest of their screen is black. If this occurs, we recommend you disable DX10, enable DX9, and restart the game client.

But its not Turbine making that choice, or even considering that choice. Its you, just because you want bigger numbers over your head.

You are missing the point:

So let me put it to you again: Turbine is forcing players to make this Choice.

regardless of what choice players make, or what decision we come to, or why we come to it. We are being forced to make this Choice.

That is where the problem lies. It is a game. It's supposed to be fun and played for enjoyment, illusionary rewards and distraction from real life, I should not need to have to make those kinds of choices in a game.

No, you're missing the point. No one is forcing anything on you. If you choose to make this distinction rather than ignoring renown and continuing to play just like you did before it existed, that is your choice, but it certainly isn't being forced upon you.

No, you're missing the point. No one is forcing anything on you. If you choose to make this distinction rather than ignoring renown and continuing to play just like you did before it existed, that is your choice, but it certainly isn't being forced upon you.

No he gets it. You are the one missing the point here. "Do without or Leave my Friends." is exactly the choice they are forcing us to make.

Agree

I really would agree that, in this case, removing decay is a reasonable request. The remainder of the argument--adding "cost" to existing items, existing guild levels, etc., is more of a "if the point is to make it difficult to obtain, increasing the pool costs would allow for the same challenge without losing accomplishments along the way."

Really not that complicated. If a game mechanic causes a person to rethink friendships, it is a poor mechanic. This can be altered without harming the game structure. No one wants to be gifted more toys as a result of removing decay. A guild who levels to 65 cannot get 66 without playing and earning it, so it being stagnant for 2 years is still possible.

Fast example: Guild A decides to focus on loot to get cash so they can afford a large pool of pots instead of renown. No problem, they were 60, they are 60, and no change up or down happens. Guild B decides to focus on renown, and gets level 70 instead.

Both obtain benefits from the game, but the shift in focus means that guild A remains 60 whereas now they might be 58 instead.

"Free levels" of where every 5 is ok, since those are benchmarks, but if we again are identifying that there is a potential game issue with decay at *any* level, I believe that is a mechanic that should not remain. And when they come back in 6 months, if the ship remain intact at the same level, and still have to work for the buffs and bonuses. Even the decay on the ship "toys" I understand--you are essentially buffing your ship, so when you buy a shrine for 3 days, I would not expect that shrine to be there in 5 days. But I still should be able to repurchase that shrine, and not be under a "Well, sorry, you decided to take college finals, so you need to put your life on hold and make up for not playing in order to re-earn the ability to buy that shrine".

That seems like an added issue that really does not need to be in game. I cannot think of a good reason to maintain this game mechanic. Those that are in support of it boggle my imagination, just simply because it seems like you would LIKE a game to penalize your friends because you took a family vacation. Again, I would not expect any rewards for not playing anymore than big penalties.

Many other games give you "Bonus buffs" for not playing for an extended period of time just so you can CATCH UP to your friends, individually. I am one of those who has graduate school courses, four kids, building onto my house, two jobs, etc. and can really play casually anymore whereas I used to be a power gamer. I played many MMOs, and this is the first time I felt bad for not helping my RL family and friends maintain what they worked so hard for. I've volunteered to leave the guild because of it, and that really should never be the case. The impacts of a guild are so much more than that, and in my 12 years of gaming, this is the first time I have encountered that question.

It is an unnecessary game mechanic--guild renown XP decay--and I would like to see it removed so we can move forward on an ungreased hill that, while it may get steeper along the way, is still feasible with determination.

No one is saying to change the amount of renown needed to advance. Your implication is that it is 'easy' to get to higher guild levels. It is not. It still takes many months, and in many cases, years, even without decay. You can recruit, and without decay, try to push to 25 now and people don't do it. You are also assuming the sheer number of noobs is available and they stick with a guild in such a situation for months on end. Your example does not bear out all the way through high levels.

We have already seen how fast guilds can level without decay, with at or around 1000 heads. Its nowhere near the time you are claiming. This has already occurred, along with the threads complaining about how noobs shouldnt have the highest level guilds. Now the forumites completely waffle on that by saying it shouldnt be the elite players either.

My "example" isnt some hypothetical situation that was dreamed up. We already watched it happen in DDO. We already know how much time it takes to level a guild to 1k blind invite headcount style.

Originally Posted by Hafeal

Uh, the very definition of inactive in my book.

But not the definition used by Turbine.

Originally Posted by Hafeal

This scenario is so far removed from reality I cannot believe you are putting this forth with any sense of seriousness.

Funny, because it already happened. As I clearly stated, this is not my prediction of what could happen, it is what HAS happened in the past with less restrictions in place. How soon we forget the inundation of blind invite style noob guilds many of the same people in this thread were complaining about when THAT all happened. And now we want to remove the method they used to fix it, but have no way of preventing it again? Fantastic!!!

I like the idea of changing the system in a way that works for everyone so a guild can be a guild and not a grind machine. I havent seen that change suggested though.

We have already seen how fast guilds can level without decay, with at or around 1000 heads. Its nowhere near the time you are claiming. This has already occurred, along with the threads complaining about how noobs shouldnt have the highest level guilds. Now the forumites completely waffle on that by saying it shouldnt be the elite players either.

My "example" isnt some hypothetical situation that was dreamed up. We already watched it happen in DDO. We already know how much time it takes to level a guild to 1k blind invite headcount style.

But not the definition used by Turbine.

Funny, because it already happened. As I clearly stated, this is not my prediction of what could happen, it is what HAS happened in the past with less restrictions in place. How soon we forget the inundation of blind invite style noob guilds many of the same people in this thread were complaining about when THAT all happened. And now we want to remove the method they used to fix it, but have no way of preventing it again? Fantastic!!!

I don't see the problem. Are guild of 1000 khorthos noobs evil or what?

We have already seen how fast guilds can level without decay, with at or around 1000 heads. Its nowhere near the time you are claiming. ...

Huh? You mean up to level 25? Because otherwise it would have been impossible past that as it has not been possible on live servers. I can tell you, being in a guild with between 900-1000 players (MAC, Khyber) as well as having some alts in a smaller guild, that it takes a LONG time to get your renown up - and it would even without decay considering the climb between levels when you get to 50+.

Originally Posted by Chai

[My "example" isnt some hypothetical situation that was dreamed up. We already watched it happen in DDO. We already know how much time it takes to level a guild to 1k blind invite headcount style.

So, removing decay changes this how? Makes it more prevalent? I do not see the correlation. Clearly, you have a greater distrust of human nature. While there will always be examples of people 'gaming' the system, removing decay does not take away the effort and time necessary to get to high guild levels. Further, IF you are a noob and stick with a guild that long, when do you stop being a noob? You seem to think people will reach guild level 100 within a month without decay - and I disagree.

Originally Posted by Chai

But not the definition used by Turbine.

Fair enough; do you have a link?

Originally Posted by Chai

it is what HAS happened in the past with less restrictions in place. How soon we forget the inundation of blind invite style noob guilds many of the same people in this thread were complaining about when THAT all happened. And now we want to remove the method they used to fix it, but have no way of preventing it again? Fantastic!!!

Huh? So rather than worry about decay, which has been in place since day 1, you are worried about blind guild invites? And those invites occurred in a system with decay but now, somehow, removing decay will worsen it when it already occurs? Hmm, I don't think so. I am willing to let new players in particular learn the game, make their judgments and learn the ropes.

The last thing in the world I am worried about is Dr. Evil recruiting all the Korthos newbies so he can fulfill amaniacal plot to become a level 100 guild and take all the glory away from the super-elites who also have a level 100 guild. Seriously, this threatens power-gamers? LOL.

As I've said before ddo is a unusual game built from the ground up on the hamster wheel of death grind. Although far from an ideal system it is still the foundation on which ddo is built. From the small-scale world setting which started so long ago that forced the. 3x per quest issue which permeates throughout the games whole design now. DDO wears this like a badge of honor or maybe even an ugly scar and although I am one who personally ignores so called end game content I know those who do it nearly exclusively. They,those high end raiders who I rarely play with are the only ones who have any real need for the ship buffs. In general lowbies especially newbie lowbies have a bad habit of being ship buff junkies and the so called punished players carrying thier casual friend need to understand that power they are earning effects potentially hundreds of other players. as I've also said other ftp mmo offer different kinds of guild and base systems and choosing another game is no sin if this one troubles you and your friends so much.

Huh? You mean up to level 25? Because otherwise it would have been impossible past that as it has not been possible on live servers. I can tell you, being in a guild with between 900-1000 players (MAC, Khyber) as well as having some alts in a smaller guild, that it takes a LONG time to get your renown up - and it would even without decay considering the climb between levels when you get to 50+.

My how soon we forget the high level guilds that just sprang up when the system was implemented and caps began to be removed.

Decay is what holds quantity based "come one come all" guilds down. Getting one to 100 without decay would be simple, as it would be literally a quantity based argument at that point. Its already happened, and the forumites were quite peeved, because the highest level guilds were chucked full of low level players, while the self entitled elite couldnt possibly match their ability to level quickly.

Originally Posted by Hafeal

So, removing decay changes this how? Makes it more prevalent? I do not see the correlation. Clearly, you have a greater distrust of human nature. While there will always be examples of people 'gaming' the system, removing decay does not take away the effort and time necessary to get to high guild levels. Further, IF you are a noob and stick with a guild that long, when do you stop being a noob? You seem to think people will reach guild level 100 within a month without decay - and I disagree.

We have ALREADY SEEN what happens when mechanics are not in place to prevent what I already outlined. All you need to do to understand how having no decay changes things is remember all the complaint threads that sprang up when "come one come all" guilds were outleveling well geared players who had multiple capped toons.

◦Note: Inactive accounts do not hurt your guild renown production or decay. However recent departures do. Thus booting inactive accounts actually hurts your guilds overall renown production. As your modified account size will go up by one for 2 weeks after the last character from that account is removed from the guild. You'll also lose 25% of the renown that character gained while a member of the guild.

All you have to do is pull up your guild tab and hover your mouse over the shield graphic in the guild screen to see this is true.

Originally Posted by Hafeal

Huh? So rather than worry about decay, which has been in place since day 1, you are worried about blind guild invites? And those invites occurred in a system with decay but now, somehow, removing decay will worsen it when it already occurs? Hmm, I don't think so. I am willing to let new players in particular learn the game, make their judgments and learn the ropes.

The last thing in the world I am worried about is Dr. Evil recruiting all the Korthos newbies so he can fulfill amaniacal plot to become a level 100 guild and take all the glory away from the super-elites who also have a level 100 guild. Seriously, this threatens power-gamers? LOL.

I could care less about what the self entitled feel should be the best way to level a guild. I just feel that it shouldnt be completely quantity based, as do the forumites, who complained up a storm when it was pretty much completely quantity based. Again, you are asking for decay to be removed but have not solved this issue, which will be an issue again in the future with your suggestion, which doesnt really solve any problem, but rather trades some issues we have today, for other issues we used to have.

My how soon we forget the high level guilds that just sprang up when the system was implemented and caps began to be removed.

Decay is what holds quantity based "come one come all" guilds down. Getting one to 100 without decay would be simple, as it would be literally a quantity based argument at that point. Its already happened, and the forumites were quite peeved, because the highest level guilds were chucked full of low level players, while the self entitled elite couldnt possibly match their ability to level quickly.

We have ALREADY SEEN what happens when mechanics are not in place to prevent what I already outlined. All you need to do to understand how having no decay changes things is remember all the complaint threads that sprang up when "come one come all" guilds were outleveling well geared players who had multiple capped toons.

All you have to do is pull up your guild tab and hover your mouse over the shield graphic in the guild screen to see this is true.

I could care less about what the self entitled feel should be the best way to level a guild. I just feel that it shouldnt be completely quantity based, as do the forumites, who complained up a storm when it was pretty much completely quantity based. Again, you are asking for decay to be removed but have not solved this issue, which will be an issue again in the future with your suggestion, which doesnt really solve any problem, but rather trades some issues we have today, for other issues we used to have.

If turbine made world peace and prosperity for everyone there would be "forumites" that complains about it. That doesn't make it a bad thing.

And if I recall correctly, the most complaints were not that big guilds got renown faster (that is something that seems perfectly reasonable to me), it was that low level characters running khortos or harbor got renown faster or just as fast as capped characters running endgame content.

We can agree to disagree

I remember issues with renown system. I also think it is the same players who oppose decay removal, for essentially the same reason, who had complaints before.

Originally Posted by Chai

Getting one to 100 without decay would be simple, as it would be literally a quantity based argument at that point.

It IS quantity based now, only there is a subtractive element, and the system only rewards one specific element of participating in the game (playing quests) with a random chance to earn renown and take it as end rewards. Quite simple. I believe what you are saying is that players would alter their play styles to max their guild rank without decay, I disagree. In fact, levelling might be slower if players did not feel the 'pressure' to take renown as their end reward. [EDIT: I would add, in a concession to cynicism, that I have no doubt Turbine wants decay in order t push selling renown elixers from the DDOStore. I wish I knew the sales figures for those, but alas, we cannot access them.]

Originally Posted by Chai

All you need to do to understand how having no decay changes things is remember all the complaint threads that sprang up when "come one come all" guilds were outleveling well geared players who had multiple capped toons.

I understand. I don't worry about what Dr. Evil is doing raising his guild level nor should players worry about others. This game is not a competition between players and their guilds.

Thanks, although that is a ddowiki link and not an official Turbine statement. To refresh, you said:

Originally Posted by Chai

Inactive players do NOT hurt guilds. Its currently a bad decision to boot inactives. The only people who hurt the decay rate are those who log in once in a great while and dont play.

[emphasis added]

Uh, the very definition of inactive in my book.

Originally Posted by Chai

But not the definition used by Turbine.

Unsupported. In fact, because the system IS currently quantity based, the pressure is on guilds who want to level or, in the alternative, maintain their level due to decay, there IS an anti-social pressure to boot inactive players. This is how I view the OP and I support that contention. I believe it is wrong and players should not be placed in that position.

Unsupported. In fact, because the system IS currently quantity based, the pressure is on guilds who want to level or, in the alternative, maintain their level due to decay, there IS an anti-social pressure to boot inactive players. This is how I view the OP and I support that contention. I believe it is wrong and players should not be placed in that position.

Click into your guild tab and hover your mouse over the shield. It will clearly break down what is being held against decay and what is not. Inactives are NOT counted against guild size for decay reasons.

There is NO pressure to boot INACTIVE players. There is a pressure to boot those who keep their account ACTIVE but do not earn renown for the guild. INACTIVE is the term they use in their own game to define someone who is logged off from their account for a long period of time - and the guild tab defines that this actually shrinks technical guild size for renown calc purpose. If you want to use the word "inactive" to define noncontributors, thats by your own semantic design, but this is not how Turbine is defining "inactive" in the guild tab when calculating modified guild size for the decay bracket.

25 actives + 5 inactives = 20 for modifed guild size.

Getting rid of decay doesnt get rid of the pressure to boot pile on friends. It creates MORE pressure to do so, in order to free up a spot for some alt-itis noob who will run irestone twice a day. This is due to the fact that quantity based headcount style leveling will be back on the menu. What I want to know is: What system does away with the decay mechanism but does not reintroduce old guild leveling issues that used to be complained about daily on the DDO forums?

Click into your guild tab and hover your mouse over the shield. It will clearly break down what is being held against decay and what is not. Inactives are NOT counted against guild size for decay reasons.

There is NO pressure to boot INACTIVE players. There is a pressure to boot those who keep their account ACTIVE but do not earn renown for the guild. INACTIVE is the term they use in their own game to define someone who is logged off from their account for a long period of time - and the guild tab defines that this actually shrinks technical guild size for renown calc purpose. If you want to use the word "inactive" to define noncontributors, thats by your own semantic design, but this is not how Turbine is defining "inactive" in the guild tab when calculating modified guild size for the decay bracket.

25 actives + 5 inactives = 20 for modifed guild size.

That's just semantics.

Originally Posted by Chai

Getting rid of decay doesnt get rid of the pressure to boot pile on friends. It creates MORE pressure to do so, in order to free up a spot for some alt-itis noob who will run irestone twice a day. This is due to the fact that quantity based headcount style leveling will be back on the menu. What I want to know is: What system does away with the decay mechanism but does not reintroduce old guild leveling issues that used to be complained about daily on the DDO forums?

No, you are wrong. If you have your low activity friend in the guild you will have less pressure to kick him because he will not stop you from leveling up. It will only make it take alittle bit longer if you have a full guild and would consider inviting an additional memebr to farm more renown.
But that is a non issue. I don't think 99% of the guilds out there would invite random people for the sole purpose of gaining renown. I also don't see the problem with large "noob" guilds that are able to level fast because of their size.

If your issue is that he can gain much renown from farming irestone inlet that is a different problem. It's very easy to solve.

The thing is that it IS a secondary leveling system. It is not arbitrary what a guild level is. If it was you just get a big ship, it would be simple epeen swinging. But there are measurable, and substantial bonuses to leveling a guild. Just as there are measurable and substantial bonuses to leveling a character.

If this whole slew of stacking guild buffs and bonus don't mean anything, why do you see ships full of them?

Why should one level system not have decay and one have dacay? You should never lose what you earn in a game by simply playing the game.

Why should a guild of 4 never have the chance to reach level 100 if a guild of 400 can? It may take 10 years but there is continual progress that can be made. There is a goal to be made. It is simply you are not good enough to level your guild because of X Y or Z. The guild of 400 may make it in a week. Their particular and very specific kind of game play fits this mechanic. Good for them. Those players that don't fit that mold, to bad for you. It doesn't matter what kind of gaming mold you fit in. All players should at least have the chance to get their guild leveled up, especially when the bonuses you get from the guild buffs can make such a huge difference in the game.

Why should we have a mechanic in the game that may persuade a few from griefing that penalizes everyone all of the time for playing the game?

This is a penalty that all players get for playing DDO. Even if you LIKE the decay system and want it you are STILL being penalized for playing! This is not a penalty for dieing, or failing a save, of failing a quest or wiping on a raid or anything else. You get guild decay for playing. Period. That is a penalty.

The thing is that it IS a secondary leveling system. It is not arbitrary what a guild level is. If it was you just get a big ship, it would be simple epeen swinging. But there are measurable, and substantial bonuses to leveling a guild. Just as there are measurable and substantial bonuses to leveling a character.

If this whole slew of stacking guild buffs and bonus don't mean anything, why do you see ships full of them?

Why should one level system not have decay and one have dacay? You should never lose what you earn in a game by simply playing the game.

Why should a guild of 4 never have the chance to reach level 100 if a guild of 400 can? It may take 10 years but there is continual progress that can be made. There is a goal to be made. It is simply you are not good enough to level your guild because of X Y or Z. The guild of 400 may make it in a week. Their particular and very specific kind of game play fits this mechanic. Good for them. Those players that don't fit that mold, to bad for you. It doesn't matter what kind of gaming mold you fit in. All players should at least have the chance to get their guild leveled up, especially when the bonuses you get from the guild buffs can make such a huge difference in the game.

Why should we have a mechanic in the game that may persuade a few from griefing that penalizes everyone all of the time for playing the game?

This is a penalty that all players get for playing DDO. Even if you LIKE the decay system and want it you are STILL being penalized for playing! This is not a penalty for dieing, or failing a save, of failing a quest or wiping on a raid or anything else. You get guild decay for playing. Period. That is a penalty.

I see it different I dont think of not getting a bonus as gettting a penalty I see it as not getting a bonus its not like you get a subtraction from the base you just dont get anything added and there are plenty of unguilded folks to you know.

Dungeons & Dragons Online® interactive video game (c) 2017 Standing Stone Games LLC. All other elements (c) 2017 HASBRO, Inc. Standing Stone Games and the Standing Stone Games logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Standing Stone Games LLC. Dungeons & Dragons Online and Wizards of the Coast and their respective logos are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast LLC and are used with permission. HASBRO and its logo are trademarks of HASBRO, Inc. and are used with permission.